I’ve been enjoying your newsletter so far! Thanks for writing it! A couple thoughts:
- Immediately after the 2016 election, many pundits on the left were making dire predictions about Trump becoming a literal dictator. While I agree he’s a terrible president, the worst predictions haven’t come true. I think base rate neglect explains why these predictions went wrong. I see echos of this type of thinking in the idea that the presidency will be delegitimized or that the US is likely to experience a color revolution. Do you think there’s good reason to be more confident this time around?
- I think of the three possibilities you sketch, “wreaking havoc” is the one I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. What would Trump’s motivation be for this, and what sorts of things would he do? My sense of Trump is that he’s all bark and no bite (well, maybe some bite) in the sense that the biggest damage he’s done is polarize the nation through divisive rhetoric. When it comes to actually making changes, he’s relative weak, which makes me think he wouldn’t be inclined to wreak havoc. What do you think?
Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to comment. This piece in American Interest by Nils Gilman (which I read only today), who was one of the organizers of the wargame mentioned in the newsletter, largely overlaps with my own thinking so I’d be quoting from it here but I think it is also worth reading in its entirety:
On delegitimization: I think that would be a real strategy by more radical elements (or perhaps even so-called centrists) within the Democratic Party if Trump manages to stay in power, either through a narrow win or some legal machination. Gilman alludes to that strategy several times by talking about controlling narrative from the get go. He also suggests mass mobilization and protests:
“ Whichever side claims the narrative immediately and creates “facts on the ground” indicating that they intend physically to keep or take the Presidency is likely to prevail. For this reason, grassroots organizers need to prepare for mass mobilization, and political campaigns need to work with legal experts and others to better understand the dynamic between legal and political strategies.”
Trump will see those attempts as a “color revolution” and would most likely respond with repression, which in turn will invite more protests etc. I can see that dynamic leading to a narrative on the left of an illegitimate presidency and a continuing political instability throughout Trump’s 2nd term if that happens.
Base rates: I agree that the Left-wing pundits’ dire predictions didn’t come true and most of it was (and continue to be) hyperbole (e.g. calling Trump Fascist for example) but I think two things are different now:
1. This is existential for Trump now. being in power gave him a lot of immunity (and until the pandemic he had the better odds for reelection I believe) and he knows (or should know) there will be enormous pressure to go after him and his family if he is out of power. His incentives to remain in power at any cost I think will change his calculus. This tends to be the classical dilemma of those who abuse power and creates its own spiral.
2. There are many pathways to the crisis at this stage (exacerbated by the raging plague and economic troubles) so it is not only Trump’s behavior that will determine where the US will end up.
So I think in this case base rate is not very informative because I think incentive structure changed and the situation is one of equifinality. Of course I might very well be misperceiving both the incentives and the structural factors that could favor remaining close to the base rate and if I turn out to be wrong (and I sincerely hope that will be the case) it will most likely because of base-rate neglect.
On wreaking havoc: Let me quote Gilman again here at length:
“ Sixth, even if Trump loses and concedes, this administrative transition will be unlike any other. Key threats that emerged from the scenario games included that Trump might use his last weeks in office to maximize the flow of Federal dollars to Trump businesses. He might try to pardon everyone, including himself, to protect against future legal actions. He might start a foreign adventure to distract attention from his actions. And he might intentionally disrupt the normal administrative handover procedures, for example by destroying files or only providing the incoming administration with the bare minimum of information. Trump has several motives for pursuing such actions. First, such behavior will increase his leverage in any negotiation he may undertake with the incoming Biden Administration on his “exit package” (for example, seeking immunity from prosecution in New York state for money laundering and tax evasion). Second, the more ruinous the situation his successor faces, the harder it will be for them the enact a positive program, and the easier it will be to find fodder for criticizing the performance of the new administration. Because, who knows? Maybe he or one of his children would like to run in 2024. Such actions would unfortunately not be unprecedented, as the mirror efforts by Herbert Hoover in 1932-33 to hamstring and sabotage President-elect Franklin Roosevelt, in the hopes of preparing his own comeback in 1936.“
I would also add simply spite and revenge as a potential motivation if he forced out of office, leaving a total mess for the incoming administration. It would also serve as ego-preservation purposes such that he can claim later on that Biden administration was a disaster etc. Also forcing Biden to put out bunch of fires will limit his bandwidth to pursue action against Trump and Co.
My real worry is the possibility of a military conflict. It might be my international politics bias but I can see scenarios that involve strikes against Iran (or lots less likely against North Korea), direct intervention in Venezuela, or worst of all baiting China into a military conflict. For instance what would stop Trump from flying into Taiwan on Christmas day and call it Republic of Taiwan? I hope Taiwanese would stop him but under such a scenario for instance I cannot see how Xi could not not respond militarily.
You wrote this piece prior to the publication of Trump's remarks disparaging the service and sacrifice of US service members in The Atlantic (linked below). There is a non-trivial bureaucratic inertia in government, generally, but it has been a major component of military and protective services in particular. Talk with any member of the US military and you will invariably encounter all kinds of stories about paperwork and red tape. The point I am making is that one must consider the role of bureaucracy in obeying the letter of the law rather than the dictates of partisanship. The article in The Atlantic now present military and Secret Service leadership not only with the justification for following the law rather than Trump's orders, but also the motivation if Trump tries to illegally retain power. I would not expect them to tip their hand ahead of the election, but by the time Trump's term is up, I would expect that they will have expressed their intention to remove him from office should he be observed to have lost the election when the Electoral College votes are counted. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/
I’ve been enjoying your newsletter so far! Thanks for writing it! A couple thoughts:
- Immediately after the 2016 election, many pundits on the left were making dire predictions about Trump becoming a literal dictator. While I agree he’s a terrible president, the worst predictions haven’t come true. I think base rate neglect explains why these predictions went wrong. I see echos of this type of thinking in the idea that the presidency will be delegitimized or that the US is likely to experience a color revolution. Do you think there’s good reason to be more confident this time around?
- I think of the three possibilities you sketch, “wreaking havoc” is the one I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. What would Trump’s motivation be for this, and what sorts of things would he do? My sense of Trump is that he’s all bark and no bite (well, maybe some bite) in the sense that the biggest damage he’s done is polarize the nation through divisive rhetoric. When it comes to actually making changes, he’s relative weak, which makes me think he wouldn’t be inclined to wreak havoc. What do you think?
Thanks a lot! I appreciate you taking the time to comment. This piece in American Interest by Nils Gilman (which I read only today), who was one of the organizers of the wargame mentioned in the newsletter, largely overlaps with my own thinking so I’d be quoting from it here but I think it is also worth reading in its entirety:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/08/06/getting-from-november-to-january/
On delegitimization: I think that would be a real strategy by more radical elements (or perhaps even so-called centrists) within the Democratic Party if Trump manages to stay in power, either through a narrow win or some legal machination. Gilman alludes to that strategy several times by talking about controlling narrative from the get go. He also suggests mass mobilization and protests:
“ Whichever side claims the narrative immediately and creates “facts on the ground” indicating that they intend physically to keep or take the Presidency is likely to prevail. For this reason, grassroots organizers need to prepare for mass mobilization, and political campaigns need to work with legal experts and others to better understand the dynamic between legal and political strategies.”
Trump will see those attempts as a “color revolution” and would most likely respond with repression, which in turn will invite more protests etc. I can see that dynamic leading to a narrative on the left of an illegitimate presidency and a continuing political instability throughout Trump’s 2nd term if that happens.
Base rates: I agree that the Left-wing pundits’ dire predictions didn’t come true and most of it was (and continue to be) hyperbole (e.g. calling Trump Fascist for example) but I think two things are different now:
1. This is existential for Trump now. being in power gave him a lot of immunity (and until the pandemic he had the better odds for reelection I believe) and he knows (or should know) there will be enormous pressure to go after him and his family if he is out of power. His incentives to remain in power at any cost I think will change his calculus. This tends to be the classical dilemma of those who abuse power and creates its own spiral.
2. There are many pathways to the crisis at this stage (exacerbated by the raging plague and economic troubles) so it is not only Trump’s behavior that will determine where the US will end up.
So I think in this case base rate is not very informative because I think incentive structure changed and the situation is one of equifinality. Of course I might very well be misperceiving both the incentives and the structural factors that could favor remaining close to the base rate and if I turn out to be wrong (and I sincerely hope that will be the case) it will most likely because of base-rate neglect.
On wreaking havoc: Let me quote Gilman again here at length:
“ Sixth, even if Trump loses and concedes, this administrative transition will be unlike any other. Key threats that emerged from the scenario games included that Trump might use his last weeks in office to maximize the flow of Federal dollars to Trump businesses. He might try to pardon everyone, including himself, to protect against future legal actions. He might start a foreign adventure to distract attention from his actions. And he might intentionally disrupt the normal administrative handover procedures, for example by destroying files or only providing the incoming administration with the bare minimum of information. Trump has several motives for pursuing such actions. First, such behavior will increase his leverage in any negotiation he may undertake with the incoming Biden Administration on his “exit package” (for example, seeking immunity from prosecution in New York state for money laundering and tax evasion). Second, the more ruinous the situation his successor faces, the harder it will be for them the enact a positive program, and the easier it will be to find fodder for criticizing the performance of the new administration. Because, who knows? Maybe he or one of his children would like to run in 2024. Such actions would unfortunately not be unprecedented, as the mirror efforts by Herbert Hoover in 1932-33 to hamstring and sabotage President-elect Franklin Roosevelt, in the hopes of preparing his own comeback in 1936.“
I would also add simply spite and revenge as a potential motivation if he forced out of office, leaving a total mess for the incoming administration. It would also serve as ego-preservation purposes such that he can claim later on that Biden administration was a disaster etc. Also forcing Biden to put out bunch of fires will limit his bandwidth to pursue action against Trump and Co.
My real worry is the possibility of a military conflict. It might be my international politics bias but I can see scenarios that involve strikes against Iran (or lots less likely against North Korea), direct intervention in Venezuela, or worst of all baiting China into a military conflict. For instance what would stop Trump from flying into Taiwan on Christmas day and call it Republic of Taiwan? I hope Taiwanese would stop him but under such a scenario for instance I cannot see how Xi could not not respond militarily.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments once again!
You wrote this piece prior to the publication of Trump's remarks disparaging the service and sacrifice of US service members in The Atlantic (linked below). There is a non-trivial bureaucratic inertia in government, generally, but it has been a major component of military and protective services in particular. Talk with any member of the US military and you will invariably encounter all kinds of stories about paperwork and red tape. The point I am making is that one must consider the role of bureaucracy in obeying the letter of the law rather than the dictates of partisanship. The article in The Atlantic now present military and Secret Service leadership not only with the justification for following the law rather than Trump's orders, but also the motivation if Trump tries to illegally retain power. I would not expect them to tip their hand ahead of the election, but by the time Trump's term is up, I would expect that they will have expressed their intention to remove him from office should he be observed to have lost the election when the Electoral College votes are counted. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/
It looks like the Washington Post is thinking like you are thinking. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/03/trump-stay-in-office/?arc404=true
*Just now realizing the piece was written by the folks you discuss*